Back

SCOPE: Integrating Organoid Screening and Clinical Variables Through Machine Learning for Cancer Trial Outcome Prediction

Bouteiller, J.; Gryspeert, A.-R.; Caron, J.; Polit, L.; Altay, G.; Cabantous, M.; Pietrzak, R.; Graziosi, F.; Longarini, M.; Schutte, K.; Cartry, J.; Mathieu, J. R.; Bedja, S.; Boileve, A.; Ducreux, M.; Pages, D.-L.; Jaulin, F.; Ronteix, G.

2026-04-11 oncology
10.64898/2026.04.10.26350512 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Predicting whether a treatment will demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit before committing to a large-scale trial remains a major unmet need in oncology. Patient-derived organoids (PDOs) recapitulate individual tumor drug sensitivity, but have not been used to forecast population-level trial outcomes. We developed SCOPE (Screening-to-Clinical Outcome Prediction Engine), a platform that integrates PDO drug screening with clinical prognostic modeling to predict arm-level median progression-free survival (mPFS) and objective response rate (ORR) without access to any trial outcome data. Patients and methods: SCOPE was trained on 54 treatment lines from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC, n=15) and metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC, n=39) with matched clinical data and PDO drug screening across 9 compounds. A Clinical Score module captures baseline prognosis; a Drug Screen Score module quantifies treatment-specific organoid sensitivity. To predict trial outcomes, synthetic patient profiles are generated from published eligibility criteria and matched to a biobank of 81 PDO lines. Predictions were externally validated against 32 arms from 23 published trials, treatment ranking was assessed across 8 head-to-head comparisons, and prospective applicability was tested for daraxonrasib (RMC-6236), a novel pan-RAS inhibitor in mPDAC. Results: Predicted mPFS strongly agreed with published outcomes (R2=0.85, MAE=0.82 months; Pearson r=0.92, P<0.001), approaching the empirical concordance between two independently measured clinical endpoints (ORR vs. mPFS, R2=0.87). ORR prediction was similarly robust (R2=0.71, MAE=7.3 percentage points). Integrating organoid and clinical data significantly outperformed either alone (P=0.001). SCOPE correctly identified the superior arm in 7 of 8 head-to-head comparisons (88%, P<0.05). Applied to daraxonrasib prior to phase 3 data availability, the platform predicted superiority over standard chemotherapy in KRAS-mutant mPDAC, consistent with emerging clinical data. Conclusion: By combining functional organoid drug screening with clinical modeling, SCOPE generates calibrated efficacy predictions for both established regimens and novel agents without prior clinical data. This approach could support clinical trial design, treatment arm selection, and go/no-go decisions, offering a new tool to improve the efficiency of gastrointestinal cancer drug development.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.2%
2
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
3
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
4
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 7%
4.7%
6
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Nature Cancer
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
9
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
10
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
11
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
13
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Cancer Cell
38 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
16
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
17
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
64 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
18
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 65%
1.3%
19
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.9%
21
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
24
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
27
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
68 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
29
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
30
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%